“Members of the jury, if you accept the scientific evidence
called by the Crown, this indicates that there are probably only about
four or five males in [the given area] from whom that semen stain could
have come. The defendant is one of them. If that is the position, the
decision you have to reach, on all the evidence, is whether you are sure
that it was the defendant who left that stain or whether it is possible
that it was one of that other small group of men who share the same DNA
characteristics.”

“While we in no way wish to detract from the obligation upon a
judge to advise a jury to proceed with caution where there is material to
suggest that a witness's evidence may be tainted by an improper motive,
and the strength of the evidence must vary according to the facts of the
case, we cannot accept that there is any obligation to give the accomplice
warning with all that entails, when it is common ground that there is no
basis for suggesting that the witness is a participant or in any way
involved in the crime the subject matter of the
trial.”

“His Lordship: Wait a minute. Coming out of custody – He has
come out of custody by virtue of a court order, it has nothing to do with
the police, so let us get that clear.

Mr Lyn-Cook: I am not saying anything, my Lord. It may be
coincidence, sir.

His Lordship: Let us get that clear. He came out of custody
because of a court order.”

The effect of this intervention, which their
Lordships regard as unfortunate, appears to have been to stop any further
questioning about the circumstances which led to Simmonds receiving a
suspended sentence and being released from custody. Whether this created any
unfairness because it stopped defence counsel from pursuing a material line of
inquiry is not something about which their Lordships would wish to speculate.
They do not need to do so, as there are other indications that the jury ought
to have been told by the judge that they should take special care when they
were considering Simmonds's evidence.